Sexual Behavior Problems (SBP) - from James Kolar's book about Ramsey case

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm at a disadvantage in not having read Kolar's book, but any theory of what happened would have to take the balled-up red turtleneck into account. By the time of her first interview Patsy had changed her story about what JonBenet wore to bed. Then there are the bruises on JonBenet's neck. Spitz said that he thought JonBenet was slung around by someone clutching her top and pressing his/her knuckles into her neck and collarbone.

I'm at a disadvantage in not having read Kolar's book, but any theory of what happened would have to take the balled-up red turtleneck into account. By the time of her first interview Patsy had changed her story about what JonBenet wore to bed. Then there are the bruises on JonBenet's neck. Spitz said that he thought JonBenet was slung around by someone clutching her top and pressing his/her knuckles into her neck and collarbone.

I mentioned this on another thread today:
Kolar's book has a b/w photo showing the turtleneck (on p. 125). It doesn't really look "balled up" to me, more like simply discarded on the counter.
But then this section of the photo is a bit undistinct and doesn't seem to show the whole garment.
What do those that have the book think?

I mentioned this on another thread today:
Kolar's book has a b/w photo showing the turtleneck (on p. 125). It doesn't really look "balled up" to me, more like simply discarded on the counter.
But then this section of the photo is a bit undistinct and doesn't seem to show the whole garment.
What do those that have the book think?

I received my copy today. I don't even see a turtleneck in the photo on
p. 125!

So are all crime scene photos in black and white, just wondering.

This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

Yep. There are way too many of those bullet points that koldkase posted that describe what we have read and heard about Burke.
I have never seriously had a BDI scenario. Now after all these years, with this much evidence made public with ST's book PMPT, and FF, among others, in hindsight it seems to me like this scenario was something I would glance at but then quickly look away and try to make the pieces fit some other way. And they never did entirely. But now, what I'm reading now, is making everything fall into place. I just don't see how it could be any other way.

With this book I think all the attention will turn to Burke now. I'm so glad Chief Kolar didn't accuse him or do anything else to define who his suspect is. He just lays out the evidence and lets the reader make up his own mind. He is soooo intelligent. He can't be sued for the way this is all presented but he actually leaves little doubt about what he really thinks. I guess the key is just don't say it outloud or put it in print. We will forever owe him for finally showing us how the puzzle pieces fit together to make sense in this crime.

I fully expect JR and LW to come out swinging eventually. I think that even though Burke is an adult now and should be fighting his own battles JR will always to try shield him and protect him like he has all of his life because I think that is a pact he and Patsy made that night. What was it he had inscribed on Patsys headstone? Something about "faithfulness"?

Well, I understand the reason why Chief Kolar chose not to let us see the stuff he gave DA Stan Garnett. That doesn't mean I like to come to the end of the book and have nothing. It was time for an exposition and there was none. I wanted to hear how he thought that night and early morning had gone, and EXACTLY what had happened to JonBenet. But his legal counsel probably told him that he'd better not do it. Anyway, what's to gain since there will be no prosecution?

What always hung me up about the BDI theory was my belief that if he had done such a violent act at the age of nearly 10, surely he would act out again at some point along the way. If he had no problems, then perhaps he had NOT killed his sister. But in the book, Kolar mentions that many of these sexually aggressive children, even the violent offenders, can be treated and may never offend again! And we know that Burke did get therapy, I think both before and after the murder.

I agree, the pieces fit better with Burke as the person who struck JonBenet. Both parents would protect him, but each might not protect the other if either one had done it. And the way John said that he wasn't angry, and when John Andrew said the killer deserved, "forgiveness."

"We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

I mentioned this on another thread today:
Kolar's book has a b/w photo showing the turtleneck (on p. 125). It doesn't really look "balled up" to me, more like simply discarded on the counter.
But then this section of the photo is a bit undistinct and doesn't seem to show the whole garment.
What do those that have the book think?

It's very hard for me to tell anything from that particular photo. I will defer to
crime scene technicians who must've described it as being balled up. I think Father B made a pertinent statement. If Patsy changed her story about whether or not JBR was wearing the turtleneck when she went to sleep, and it was found balled up on the counter, then, it might suggest it has importance.

Maybe the turtleneck was "unballed" during the investigation and photographed at a later time. The cops were probably originally looking for a kidnapped child wearing a red turtleneck. A cop might pick it up to see if this red piece of clothing was a turtleneck.

I'm curious if the left upper side (from the wearer's point of view) appears stretched out at all.

I understand their empathy, as they knew the family and were all probably having PTSD, at least those who saw this dead child being brought out of the basement, stiff as the "look-alike" doll Patsy bought her.

But at some point, you either have to just tell the truth and let the law apply, or you have to give up on the U.S. Constitution and agree if this is how the system works, then we need stop the elitist hypocrisy and let everyone out of prison.

Otherwise, it's all a sham.

Which is why in my opinion Chief Kolar and Steve Thomas are righteous dudes.

"University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"FF: WRKJB?

The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

I had to repeat this quote. If this is really what John Ramsey said, then it wasn't Patsy who killed JonBenet. And I doubt if "he" was meant to be him, John Ramsey. I only know one other "he" who was in the house that night, and may have not actually meant to kill JonBenet.

"We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

I don't think he meant to hurt her

koldkase, in another thread, raised some questions about the statement, uttered by John, as he brought JBR's body upstairs. Koldkase wondered if JR was referring to BR or was he just trying to throw the suspicion on another
"insider". Good question.

For, if JR was referring to BR, then, it would seem he was totally unaware of the staging that was done...meaning PR and BR were the only ones involved.

I'm going to give my opinion on JR's statement and the reasoning behind it. I would be interested what other posters glean from this most revealing statement uttered by JR.

First of all. JR read the ransom note and he had all morning (if he was truly unaware of what took place) to think about what might have happened. Surely, BR would have crossed his mind and he would've questioned the lad before police arrived. Also, he had to know, if he thought five minutes about it, that BR could not have written the ransom note.

Secondly. JR rushed BR out of the house and would not let him be questioned by LE saying: "He was asleep, he didn't know anything." Why would he do such a thing if he (JR) was truly ignorant about what was going on? Remember. At this time, if JR was ignorant, JR thought the body was out of the house. So, if JR was truly ignorant, then, JR could not have suspected BR at this point. Ransom note plus body gone out of the house equals BR's innocence.

It appears, then, that JR wasn't ignorant so why did he implicate BR by stating a he was involved and that he didn't mean to do it?

I have two theories about this statement:

JR had to feel that the staging was a long shot...that they probably weren't going to pull this thing off so, when he met Father Rol at the top of the steps with his little girl's dead body, he wanted Father Rol to know (if the truth came out) that BR didn't mean to hurt her.

But he didn't want LE to know this for when he came face to face with Arndt, he said: "This is an inside job." Why not make the same remark to Arndt? Why not say: "He didn't mean to hurt her, she was warm and covered up?

TWO:

They (PR and JR) staged a kidnapping by someone who was close to the family. FW, MP and LHP, Santa Bill, etc., etc. Now both statements, made by JBR (He didn't mean to hurt her and this is an inside job) make sense.

Which one of these do you think come closer to the truth and do you have any theories of your own?